WITH CRAZED WAR HAWK SAMMY POWER BACK IN THE NEWS AFTER CRASHING AND BURNING LAST MARCH (SEE PHOTO BELOW), THESE REPORTERS CAUGHT UP WITH HER THIS MORNING TO SEE HOW SHE WAS DOING?
"JUST GREAT," SHE ENTHUSED. "I KNOW EVERYONE THINKS MY LIFE IS OVER OR I MUST BE SUICIDAL BECAUSE I MARRIED CASS AND, YEAH, HE IS BUTT UGLY, BUT SO AM I. AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE CHILDREN, THE WORLD WILL BE OKAY. PROBABLY."
ASKED ABOUT HER INFAMOUS MONSTER COMMENT, SAMMY LAUGHED, "IF THAT WASN'T THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK! I AM A MONSTER AND I EMBRACE MY MONSTOROUS SELF THESE DAYS. I AM ITCHING IN MY ENTIRE BEING FOR MORE WAR AND MORE DEATHS. IT'S LIKE A SEXUAL RUSH. I FEEL VERY TUESDAY WELD IN PRETTY POSION!"
ASKED ABOUT BEING BACK ON TEAM OBAMA, SAMMY DECLARED, "WOULD CARRIE NATIONS JUST TOSS IN THE TOWEL? NO AND NEITHER WILL I! I WIELD A MEAN AXE AND I LAUGH AT ALL THE ASSHOLES IN THE PRESS WHO NEVER REPORTED THAT I LEFT IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS INCLUDING REVEALING THAT BARACK'S 'PROMISE' TO WITHDRAW TROOPS WAS JUST WORDS AND INSULTING GORDON BROWN. DIG IT, I WAS INSULTING HIM ALL OVER LONDON, SAYING THINGS LIKE 'I AM CONFUSED BY WHAT'S HAPPENED TO GORDON BROWN. I THOUGHT HE WAS IMPRESSIVE.' I THOUGHT! HA. I'M SO JOAN COLLINS! NOW BARACK'S BROUGHT ME BACK EVEN AFTER I INSULTED THE LEADER OF ENGLAND! I ROCK!"
WE THANKED SAMMY FOR SETTING ASIDE HER PLOTS OF KILLING LONG ENOUGH TO SPEAK WITH US AND SHE SAID, "COULD I JUST SAY THAT I HAVE TWO GOALS FOR 2009? I MEAN IT'S THE END OF YEAR AND PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE RESOLUTIONS AND ALL THAT STUFF. FIRST UP, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BE IN VOGUE FOR A CHANGE AND NOT MEN'S VOGUE. I KNOW I'M NOT PRETTY OR EVEN PLAIN, BUT I WILL FIRE BOMB THEIR OFFICES IF THEY DO NOT PUT ME ON THE COVER. SECOND? I REALLY WANT TO FIND THE RIGHT GUY FOR GEORGE CLOONEY. IT'S REALLY TIME HE CAME OUT OF THE CLOSET AND SETTELED DOWN. THE WHOLE COUNTRY KNOWS HE'S GAY, KNOWS THAT WAS THE 'JOKE' OF THE PUBLICIZED BET MICHELLE PFEIFFER HAD WITH HIM YEARS AGO, AND GRASPS THAT'S WHY HE REMAINS A 'BACHELOR' THE SAME WAY LIBERACE WAS A 'BACHELOR.' I JUST WANT GEORGE TO FIND HIM A GUY WHO CAN MAKE HIM HAPPY. PLEASE QUOTE ME ON THAT."
Yesterday, the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement passed the Iraqi Parliament and some form of the treaty was also released in English (finally) by the White House. While the White House issued a fact-free feel-good from the Bully Boy of the United States and the press, always desperate to fit in, copped a few feels of their own, the reaction was not as universal aclaim in Iraq. Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) reports approximately 9,000 people gathered to protest in Sadr City and another 2,500 in Basra. AP adds, "Al-Sadr's statement calls for "peaceful public protests" and the display of black banners as a sign of mourning. But it doesn't repeat his threat to unleash militia fighters to attack U.S. forces if they don't leave immediately."
The treaty passed but no seems concerned and you have to wonder who in the US administration (or the press) is paying attention. The UN warned this month that violence would most likely increase as a result of Parliamentary elections being (finally) scheduled for next year. Was it really the time to antagonize Iraqis further? Will the treaty be looked at in a year or two the same way Paul L. Bremer's decision to de-Baathify the Iraqi government was? Will it be the failure that people point to and marvel over how the US just had to keep pushing, just had to poke the bear. Was it worth the anger and the ill will? No one wants to debate that or acknowledge it. The press is on their cop-a-feel high. Take Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) who breathlessly pants the vote was "historic". Historic? 149 members of Parliament voted for the treaty. There are 275 members of Parliament. That's barely over half. Historic? Really? The Scotsman explains the treaty better than any domestic outlet: "On Thursday, Iraqi lawmakers approved a pact allowing US forces to stay in Iraq for three more years." The domestic press outlets are too busy parroting the White House to note much reality. AFP explains, "The United States on Thursday hailed the Iraqi parliament's approval of a landmark accord for US troops to leave the country in three years, but a referendum on the deal next year could complicate withdrawal plans for the next US president." Ignore the referendum, ignore that the majority of Iraqis want the US out now, ignore that the backdoor deals that the US crafted to push the treaty through are not unknown in Iraq . . . On that last point, Iran's Press TV reports:
"Washington echelons repeatedly threatened to overthrow the Iraqi government if they continued their opposition to the security deal," said Tehran's interim Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati.
Iraq's al-Morsad reported on Oct. 10 that US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had warned that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would be 'ousted' unless he signed the US-proposed security pact.
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi has also claimed that the Bush administration had threatened to cut off vital services to Baghdad if it further delayed the accord, saying the threats were akin to 'political blackmail'.
"It was really shocking for us…Many people are looking to this attitude as a matter of blackmailing," al-Hashimi said on Oct. 26.
Ignore all of that and ignore that all of this is one big pressure cooker. It really is just like when Bremer disbanded the Baath Party and the real-time press rushed to hail that too. Let's drop back to the April 10 Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations hearing chaired by Joe Biden who noted "We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat? . . . [that the proposed treaty requires the US] to take sides in Iraq's civil war [and that] there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out. . . . Just understand my frustration: We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." Senator Russ Feingold agreed noting, "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true colation, won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?" But the press, reflecting their 'betters' in the administration, rush to ignore those basic facts. Feingold's question bears repeating, "Are you not concerned at all that the majority of the Iraqi Parliament has called for withdrawal?" Apparently the press isn't concerned but they're not free press, they can't report, they can only reflect the spin coming out of the White House.
None more so than the media crack whore Alissa J. Rubin who joins with Campbell Robertson (New York Times) to pimp one lie after another and, most notoriously, the lie that the treaty "goes into effect on Januray 1, 2009, when the current United Nations mandate that currently governs American troop operations in the country expires." Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard, Alissa J. The treaty now goes to the presidency council where the three members may approve it or they may shoot it down (only one vote is required to nix the treaty). Translation, at this point, nothing goes into effect on January 1, 2009. Don't get stoned and try to 'report,' Alissa, it only embarrasses yourself, the paper and everyone else. Who, what, when and where, not predicitions passed off as facts. She's far from the only cop-a-feel-pimper, but she is the worst. The Washington Post manages to include (buried deep) the following on the treaty:
". . . the pact also allows the Iraqi government to negotiate with the United States to extend the presence of U.S. troops if conditions on the ground are not stable. The Los Angeles Times manages to note: "The pact allows for amendments if both sides agree to them. U.S. officials have indicated that they interpret that as permitting an extension, if security conditions in Iraq are deemed too shaky to leave Iraqi forces in charge. 'There is a provision for extension, by agreement of both sides,' one U.S. official said." While the Iraqi Parliament has now approved the treaty, the White House thinks they can get away with circumventing the Constitution and refusing to allow the treaty to go before the US Congress. American Freedom Campaign picks the lack of US Congressional input into the treaty as the abuse of the week:
Iraq Parliament to vote on U.S.-Iraq agreement, while Congress has no input
During the Bush administration, the power of the executive branch has been greatly expanded. At times, President Bush has treated Congress like an inferior branch of government – and, to be honest, Congress has done very little to demonstrate it minds being treated that way.
Case in point: On November 17, the New York Times reported that the U.S. and Iraq had reached an agreement setting the terms of the U.S.'s presence in Iraq after the expiration of the UN mandate on December 31. Although the Bush administration is calling this agreement a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a category of international agreement that does not require congressional approval, it is clear that the agreement goes well beyond a traditional SOFA.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has no plans to seek congressional approval. What makes this even worse is that under the Iraqi constitution, this kind of agreement must be approved by the Iraqi Parliament. So we are left with a situation in which the Iraqi Parliament is voting on an agreement that will affect the lives of U.S. soldiers, but Congress has no voice at all in the process. And what is Congress doing about this? Very, very little so far…
And while Biden could express frustration April 10th over the treaty and object to it, while Barack Obama could do the same as he was running in the Democratic Party primary for the presidential nomination, while he could show boat and pretend he shared Hillary Clinton's objection to a treaty without Congressional approval (even becoming one of the 13 co-sponsors of the bill she put foward), while Biden and Obama could run in the general election insisting that the treaty must have Congressional approval, that was then. Every time a Barack wins an election, a Barack loses a spine. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) shares this today:
His transition team will now be poring over every word of the document to see what it will mean for those soldiers who may remain in Iraq for up to three years after the expiry of the UN mandate on December 31. Mr Obama, a lawyer, will be anxious to see that American troops remaining in the country do not fall foul of Iraqi or international law.
The treaty was yet another 'present' vote for Barack. He couldn't stand up, he couldn't do a damn thing. When you've built your own myth around your so-called judgment and the only thing you have to remotely base that claim on is a 2002 speech, you're paralyzed and that's what Barack's rushing to enshrine: a paralyzed presidency.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Kat's Korner: Labelle's neither 'back' nor 'now'"
"Alissa J. Rubin, the paper's media crack whore"